eisinger, looking zingis article on penali those involved with the 2008 financial crisis. now, "washington journal." ♪ don't forget c-span's coverage of the white house correspondents dinner begins at 6:00 tonight. you can find out more at our website, c-span.org. look for additional content on our facebook and twitter pages. journal" forton may the third, 2014. obama is -- thoughts onet your the use of the death penalty in

the united states. three lines to chime in. if you support it, tell us why 5-3880. if you oppose it, 202-585-3881. if you are not sure. 202-585-3882. @cspanwj.r is you can reach out to us on facebook. our e-mail is journal@c-span.org. the new york times writes about the statements made yesterday at the white house. president obama is asking for the review of the death penalty. the story goes on to read --

your thoughts on the death as a result of this call for a view by president obama. three lines for you to choose this morning. president obama made these

comments yesterday during that joint appearance with angela merkel, the german chancellor prieto here are hits -- german chancellor. are his thoughts. [video clip] >> the individual that was subject to the death penalty committed heinous crimes. i said in the past there are certain circumstances in which a that theso terrible application of the death penalty may be appropriate. mass killings, the killing of -- but i have also said that in the application of the death penalty we have seem significant problems, rachel bias, an even application of the

unevenenalty -- application of the death penalty. there were situations where individuals on the death row were discovered to have been innocent because of x go that because of that -- the cousin of -- because of exculpatory evidence. i will be discussing with eric -- to give meers an analysis of what steps have been taken, not just in this particular incidence but more broadly. i think we have to ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions around these issues. >> this was on facebook this

morning where we posted our question at facebook.com/c-span. daniel lewis writes -- off of twitter this morning -- a couple of thoughts on the death penalty this morning, if you want to add a your thoughts to it you can do so on twitter and facebook. linese divided the between those that support it, and those that are not sure. yuri, pennsylvania is up first.

this is betty. i support this specifically. when i think of what this man did to that poor victim -- he buried her alive and they are worried about him having a terrible death? can you imagine yourself being put into dirt and buried alive? feel sorry for what he did to his victim. personys think about the -- we don't think about the poor child that has been murdered by these people. i think you have to put into call -- into context what these people do to their victims. host: in this sense you supported overall? it depends on the case? they should i think

be treated as they treated their victim. i am so sorry that people feel like these people -- these horrible people are out there doing whatever they want to do. and we foolish people who are feeling sorry for the person who i am afraid to- go to a beauty shop anymore. joe from massachusetts on our opposed line. caller: as someone who had a family member who was a homicide victim, i am still adamantly opposed to the death penalty. basically because as long as we have the death penalty there will be innocent people executed. i do agree that some of these people do deserve the death penalty, but what percentage of innocence are people willing to suffer? the tulsa world newspaper this morning talks about the duringl that were used

the lethal injection that took place this week. here is the headline from "tulsa world." the governor sending a tweet shortly after, saying -- your view of the death penalty, from detroit, michigan, support line. i am very much a supporter. [indiscernible] what he did to that young girl

come it could have been the same way. with these ladies that drove the car and felt like she had nothing -- and she had no be morris for things that happened. she had no remorse for things that happened. i feel like he was fighting to the last moments of his life. [indiscernible] according to the death penalty information center located here in washington dc, an all-time high of 98 executions back in 1999. it dropped significantly after 2000.

19 so far for 2014. 39 took place in 2013. 43 in both 2011 and 2012. rich port, connecticut -- bridgeport, connecticut for someone who opposes the death , go ahead. caller: i oppose the death penalty because i feel like that is a decision only god can make. i wouldn't want that blood on my hand. i don't support it at all. i just feel like one day the , such asat did that the man who was supposed to be executed, god will judge him one day. as far as we on earth doing that, i don't think a person would feel comfortable. host: as an alternative would

you agree to life in prison? caller: yes. i think that is the worse punishment of all. on a certain channel i watch, it shows -- i could never see myself in jail. i would want to die. very goodat is a punishment. some men have been in there for .4 years, 25 years who wants to live like that? i will give you an example real quickly. my momwas a little girl, did not believe in spankings so she told me to go to my room. later on she came back and said, maybe i should spank you. i said, ok but i will take it. then i can go outside and play again.

i don't believe in it. thank you. host: the new york times writeup says -- bill from wichita, kansas is up next and good morning. good morning.

i am 60 years old and i have had mixed feelings until i read about -- i live in kansas, the neighboring state. i never heard about this guy until it was brought up. it, that evilout does not deserve to live on our planet with other people. i am abc mydro, twin grandsons this weekend. i amst woke up -- babysitting my twin grandsons this weekend. we just woke up together. if somebodymagine did anything to my grandchildren. they talk about a botched , well it wasn't botched. he was executed and he died. he probably suffered a little bit. i am sure before the gentleman passed away something flashed in his mind what he had done to

that child. as how the death penalty is applied, would you supported overall or how do you judge when to use it? caller: like i said earlier i have a bit of mixed feelings on that when it comes to something as heinous as that. there was that teenager kid in minnesota that was planning on killing massive amounts of people. that would have been a good case for the death penalty. thank god that lady intervened and saved all those people up there. if that kid would have gone through and done what he had plotted out, there is no question about that. host: the death penalty information center takes a look at deathow inmates -- row inmates by race.

some of the death row inmates are listed by state. with 741, texas with 87, and it goes down from there. the deathhts on penalty, especially in light of this review ordered by president obama because of incidents -- of an incidence that took place in oklahoma this week. -- if youalled at supported -- -- if you support it. any is on our line -- annie is on our lines. caller: i definitely oppose the

death penalty. the bible says without shown not killed. shall not kill. afeel like only god can give life and only god can be able to take one. nobody gets the death penalty -- [indiscernible] if you have it just for one race, that is definitely the wrong reason to have it.

[indiscernible] he has been there a long time trying. i'm too sick to work now. i'm definitely against it. it is there for the wrong reasons. the human rights council taking a look at what took place this weekend -- bill king off of twitter also adding this morning -- on our not sure line, here is dam. dan.re is caller: we had a gang two blocks down.

one guy went to prison and got out after 13 years. he killed another guy. if someone did it i believe they should be executed. tooth for aye, tooth. they find out after they are executed that they are innocent -- that bothers me. in chicago, what is going with the gangs -- in chicago what is going on with the gangs? it's ridiculous. the prisons are full. if they are not sure if they are innocent then they shouldn't

kill them. if they killed somebody they should be klleilled too. talk a family members you --about this not sure yet go our family members you talk to about this not sure th? if it's a situation where a corrupt officer, they are hiding evidence or something -- common times have there been andle who were executed they found out they were incident -- found that they were innocent? tonight, the white house

correspondents dinner. hugh can see the full scope of the program starting at 6:00 tonight. not only will you see arrivals, you will see president obama, you hear from entertainer joe mchale.-- joel our coverage starts at six. a good time to like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. that is the white house correspondents dinner. learn moreebsite to about tonight's event and find out some other interesting content about this event. our next caller is on our support line. -- somesome people innocent people are going to die because we make some mistakes but how many innocent people are dying because we let these people back out on the streets? i am sick of everybody trying to make everything racial.

statistics, you have more white people ready to be executed than anything. we as a society need to quit messing with our kids. that is why the world is going to hell in a handbag. it is as simple as that. next, he is from fort worth, texas on our support line. my opposition is not necessarily an opposition to the death penalty but the way it is applied. as far as the racial opponent goes, whites make up 10% of the population and they make up half of the people on death row. low income people are likely to be more's -- are more likely to be suspected, to be charged, and to be convicted for longer sentences.

the application, the way we -- ifit in this country you have power and influence you get to walk. or a workingw class person you have to defend -- have to depend on the public. were moreprosecutors interested in winning than getting the right guy. if they focus on somebody the ink they can convict they will quit looking. somebodyy focus on they think they can convict they will quit looking. it is hard to feel sorry for him. thanks for c-span. "the new york times" reporting this -- taking a look at issues in benghazi.

writing -- again, that is from "the new york times." bodies ofom various congress putting out tweets, taking a look at this issue and giving their comments on it.

from oxford, massachusetts on a line for those not sure, good morning. caller: good morning. i am not sure because there have been innocent people executed. i would like to make a comment about the humaneness, the humane aspect of this. why can't they just put a single bullet to the back of the head if the person is really guilty? it's cheap, it's quick -- why thethe debate about availability of drugs and so forth? host: as far as time is concerned, a tweets looking at the executions and length of each execution that has taken place. if you scroll lower it shows

clayton lockett's execution at 43 minutes. propublica.out by oregon, support line. i agree an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. , they losts suffer loved ones. to go through appeals for 5, 10, 15 years. it costs taxpayers. are innocent, that is bad. if they are guilty, i agree with the last caller. of thet in the back head, and electric chair, the

gas chamber, how long did the victims suffer? host: maxine from baltimore, michigan on a line for those not sure about how they feel about the death penalty. caller: i am completely conflicted regarding the death penalty. if i look at the pros and cons the pros are the individual will not commit any more murders. that essay for society. safe for society. the con is i do not trust the government enough to trust them with taking a life. a cousin of the corruption we have in our court systems and the inequality when it comes to the underprivileged. as far as this individual suffering, our constitution says that we won't use any undue

methods. it is a conflicting matter to me. life in prison is not that bad. have their meals served, they don't have to worry about the rent, electricity, anything. i am very conflicted about it and i hope someone smarter than me can figure it out. host: jim is reflecting off of the life in prison concerns, or at least the angle on this, saying -- some people making their thoughts known on the death penalty. the us is after a review called upon by president obama. a couple of other tweets, here speaker boehner.

also darrell issa, the head of the house oversight committee, -- ubpoenaing john kerry that prompted a response by the ranking member, saying -- carroll joins us from .ennsylvania on our oppose line caller: i do oppose the death penalty because i think it is a piece of cake to get a shot and they go to sleep and they are dead. they are getting high before they go and they are not suffering at all. it is an easy way out.

i think what they should do is cut all his genitals off and put him in the middle of town square like they used to do in other suffer.s and watch him hang him and watch him suffer until he dies. when you put him through the death penalty, i think that is an easy way out. it's like a recreation thing. they get their time outside, they get their meals for free. better to would be kill him, but not by lethal injection. i think that is too easy for him. host: molly is up next from florida on the support line. you are on. caller: i absolutely support

this. people do not understand the scar that is left on a family of a victim. i had a 12-year-old cousin raped .nd murdered when i was a child having been a victim of a heinous crime myself, people don't understand. we are arty in a financial bind in our country and it costs millions of dollars to keep ande people in the jails take care of their health and everything. they have done a heinous crime. they have been told they need to be put to death. just need to go ahead and do it and get it over with and not have to deal with this anymore. it is not right.

, let them docrime the penalty for it. a story taking a look at the transportation of oil, this particularly relates to north dakota. they ship i rail across the country, according to the department of transportation. the department has been seeking information --

on our newsmakers program, which airs on sundays right after this program, we are hearing from senator john hogan, republican from north dakota. he is talking about oil specifically in context of the .eystone xl pipeline he says the congress has the authority to move forward with it. here are some of his comments about that. [video clip] >> in the constitution congress has the authority to make this decision. typically it has always been a presidential national interest determination situation. the president says he is going to delay it indefinitely. here we are, it is a situation where we are in year six. for more than five years the president has refused to make a decision. six.e now in year polls 70% of the

american people very much want this project approved. they want the national security of producing our own oil here and working with canada rather than importing the oil -- rather than importing oil from the middle east treat it is time for congress to step up and do it even though the president is pushing back and saying, stay out of it. we need to move forward and back. host: you can watch the full conversation tomorrow on our newsmakers program. see that at 10:00 tomorrow on c-span. at 6:00.atch it again the business section of the the latestpost, taking a look at general motors as they go over faulty a mission swooshes. -- faulty ignition switches.

christina as of next from flint, michigan on our oppose line. my concern was you said white and 34% african american. are you taking into account that there is much more white people

or caucasians and african americans? this may not be accurate but i am just giving you a sample. be 100 white people as opposed to 10 black people. are you saying that -- informations just provided by them, but go ahead. ifler: i was just wondering the 34% meant it was 34% of the 10 to 100 white -- 56%? host: i don't know the answer to that. caller: ok. oppose, not because of a racial thing, because of a person thing.

i used to think that they should. i don't think it should be. host: what specifically changed your mind? bible: just reading my more. getting more into spiritual things. -- if think of revenge there was a double homicide and -- one ofmy nieces the nieces was raised my home. i really hated that and her daughter was 11. actserson had committed and then to jail a lot of times. and i was angry. you say things when you are angry. think about it, it is not up to us to take a human life.

some people are innocent. how do you know? what do you do then? the death penalty information center has a list of states that do not apply the death penalty. that listing includes alaska, connecticut, hawaii. there are others on the list. call, linda from george on our support line. i heard the statistics that were issued by the department and wished that our president would have been prepped before going to the world and the chancellor and making a racial divide again amongst the american people. i don't believe that the heinous s that individuals take on

others as far as the violence against children, rapes, murders , i don't think we should keep the murderers in prison for years on the taxpayer's dime, paying for their table. believe the death penalty is ok. it has been around the time since king solomon, who was the wisest of all kings. never on the cross condemned the act of the death penalty as he hung on the cross with the two individuals. issue was it was the individual's responsibility to accept and acknowledge what they had done and done wrong.

i do believe we should find a better way to put them to death, kind of like we do dogs, by ms to sizing them prior to administering whatever it is that is going to -- by ms the by anesthesizing them. the bible says do not kill. that is what these violent acts are, murdering. host: we will talk about this as a going to our 9:15 segment this morning. new figures from the department a look at theng

economy. the unemployment rate falling to 6.3%. highlighting some other thisrs as well in a graph morning, saying 288,000 jobs thatadded but also adding 800,000 fewer total workers in this latest report. we will take a closer look at that 9:15 this morning. for the next couple of minutes, your views on the death penalty. president obama has called for a review of it. he made the announcement at the white house. chris from huntington, pennsylvania, support line. caller: i am retired from corrections. it is a shame what is going on inside the prison system. we have people saying -- people eating and in jerry's ice cream with their flatscreen tvs.

we're spending millions of dollars on their medication and play time. around and doit nothing. they don't have to work anymore. there is no hard time in prison anymore. he was garbage. everybody wants to pity him in the media. jack off of twitter says -- next for madison heights, michigan on the support line. myler: thank you for taking call. i am in support of the death penalty but i would like to take it one step further. i think it should be a 50 state death penalty and i do think it should be almost immediate. give them 30 days on death row. not 30 years. it is a waste of taxpayers money

, giving a prisoner on death row 30 days to live is a lot better than what they gave their victim. benghazi, we ought to that thete iraq republicans mass murdered our military could let start doing those investigations. host: alan from idaho on our support line, you are our last call. go ahead. one more time, are you there? i think the connection was bad. we appreciate all the calls this morning. as we move on we will take a look at education policy. our next guest will discuss the federal education effort known as common core.

neal mccluskey from the cato institute will join us on that. ger will joinisin us. there were many investigations the took place after 2008 financial crisis. how many of those investigated went to jail? we will talk to jesse about that. mchalis a picture of joel e. he's the entertainer who will offer comments on tonight's correspondents dinner. our coverage of it starts at 6:00. only can you watch it on c-span, you can go to our twitter and facebook pages for additional content that will be put up around the night -- put up through the night. the correspondents dinner is live at 6:00 tonight.

e-span spoke to joel mchal about how he is planning to entertain folks tonight. [video clip] >> you are on david letterman the other night. he has been asked to host. >> i can assume he has been home all the time. his advice was, don't do it. me,ked him if he would join be my guest. he said no. i don't think i came up with the right number. >> he mentioned you talk to hosts that have hosted. them?u get feedback from >> know, all of them tried to screw me. that's not true, they were all very helpful. i called common and jimmy fallon and seth meyers and carrot top -- thankfully i kind of know

them and they were very gracious to give me pointers on what the evening is like. all of them separately said the same thing, which was it is the strangest, most wonderful evening. it is like no other gig you'll ever do. it is bizarre but exhilarating. sittingup on the dais with the first lady and the president. there is no other gig in history where before you perform, there is zero break between you and the president and before that you are sitting next to the first lady for two hours. it's crazy. >> have you gone back and watched what some of those guys have done? >> i have seen all of them before and i did watch them. there is only so much you can do before you do it. see the lay of the land, see what the room looks like.

of i have -- i have a definite grasp of how the night goes. from there you just better have funny jokes. , ac-span's newest book collection of interviews with top storytellers. are afraid of holding the gun. when we went to the first battle and we fought and i shot somebody, it does something to you. it's very difficult in the beginning. after time went on it became easy. happened when you -- >> one of 41 unique voices from 25 years.

now what your favorite bookseller. -- now at your favorite bookseller. >> "washington journal" continues. joining us is the associate director for the center for educational freedom. about here to talk something known as common core. echo --d you define nt define it? guest: one thing everyone can agree on is these are standards established for math and reading. they were created by the ,ational governor's association professional organizations of governors and state superintendents. we also think everybody agrees that the federal government, the race to the top set the state if maximum points for

competition, for money, you have to adopt the common core. the term they used were standards, to a majority of states. there are only one standards that met that definition, and that is common core. is thing everyone agrees on this was further advanced by the federal government. they said if you want to waiver from the no child left behind act, you have two choices. one is common core, the other is you have a network of public .ousing in your state importantly, this happened after the race to the top when most states said it would use common core. host, as far as what it actually does, how does that happen on a year-to-year basis? in 2000 10 states said we were going to implement this thing. -- 2010, state said we were going to implement this thing. the next year you were supposed

to see meaningful testing. now --e states right they are trying it out. that is when it really gets implemented, when you see those tests that account for accountability ultimately -- rds all caps are different. everybody should do the same thing at the same time. that ignores basic reality of human beings. different kids learn different things at different times. have differento ideas about what is the best standard. have one national standard, you don't get that competition anymore. common core doesn't work well. or if there are things that can always be approved, we don't know how to do that.

finally the federal government has gotten heavily involved in this and centralization tends to be controlled not by parents who are supposed to serve but it is centralized. he have people in washington trying to tell every community, no matter how different, how they should run their schools. far as theid as curriculum is concerned, does that mean every state can develop their own curriculum under the developed common core? guest: there is disagreement on this. there is no disagreement this is they arebe standard going to tell you what they need to be able to do, not how you do it. there is disagreement whether it is curriculum. math, itok at the doesn't just say you should be able to multiply multidigit numbers, it says how you should be a look to do it. you should be able to use aerial

models and other ways of multiplying. murky whether or not you're talking about curriculum when talking about the standards. i don't think anybody disagrees that the point of the standards is to put a box around your curriculum. what can you and can't you do? what happens to a school who takes the money and stepped up the standards? what would happen to the school in question? guest: we moved away from the no child left behind model. common core is part of this overall change in federal policy that started with race to the top. still have schools accountable based on their test scores. there a little bit more leeway. you have other measures.

lower fivein the percent or 10% of schools, you are still going to be punished or at least be put on a path you don't want to go on. host: were you supportive of no child left behind? guest: i wasn't. it said we are now going to require that you have state standards, state tests, that you put all your schools on a trajectory to reach full for -- full proficiency. it was unconstitutional. .t became what you expect most states set low bars and did everything they could to call it proficiency did not actually meaningful this meaningfully call it proficiency. but we are going to do is we are

going to use the same tests and the same definition of proficiency so that you cannot hide these -- hide these things. he had the same pressures at a local government district, a state government monopoly, or the federal government. facthile you ignore the that all communities are different, all schools are different, and most importantly all kids are different. host: if you want to questions about it -- comedy people have signed up or how the states have signed up for common core? guest: 45 states have signed up.

minnesota took one of the standards -- they took half of it. what you see is the state of indiana pulled up. it was the first state that said it would use common core and officially left. of oklahoma is on the verge of that. south carolina just passed something a few days ago. host: have the given reasons? andt: there are a lot fees that a lot of reasons people dislike the core. it is hard to pin down exactly what it is. indiana can set its own standards and indiana has a barely that has a very highly rated set of standards. they are saying this is not something the government should be telling us what to do. there are many who say these are not very good standards. they say they are not internationally hunched mark --

internationally benchmarked. there are lots of federalism questions and quality questions that have caused people to resist the core. host: we had a guest talking about the same topic, he was taking the position of common core, they were created by the states. i want you to listen to his thoughts. [video clip] >> this was something that the ittes did on their own, started long before president barack obama was even in office. it's true after this process had gotten started, after the state started working together on these, standards the federal obamament through barack then put forth some strong incentives for the state to sign up. this very much started in the states and it is being run back at the state level, and that is where the debate is. host: started at the state and run back at the state level. are a few things

that need to be dealt with here. the national governors association, the council of school officers, they are professional organizations of governors and state superintendents. these don't represent states. i bet you couldn't find anybody in any state who said, do you know why i voted for x y or z for governor? because i wanted to know what they would do in the national governors association. it has no bearing on states. through government and their own lack of representatives -- own -- and their elected tentativeness -- they may be state officials but they do not represent them. it was not intended to be state or voluntary for states even o.om the nga and css

saying statess should get onto a common set of internationally accepted standards. that is what, coors. they said the federal government has a job to incentivize the adoption of these things through funding and regulatory relief, which is what no left -- no child left behind waivers were. stand why when you read -- you can understand why when you read material -- they said for top-down standards to work you have to have a tripod, which is you have to have common standards,, tests, and common punishments or repercussions if you don't do well. say material, say metric of how and then you,

can't escape accountability by saying we can't hold ourselves accountable. there is only one entity that has authority over states or takes authority overstates. impossible to believe that there wasn't an intention behind this to have the federal government involved long before there was an obama administration. how do we get to this government co-opting plans designed by outside bodies? guest: i don't think they co-opted it. the 2008 report benchmarking for success and that is clear. reason to believe that the administration got the stimulus and the race to the top was just a small part of that. it was basically it links late. that basically a blank slate.

-- it was basically a blank slate. the national standards were saying that something you should push through this program is national standards. if you look at the timeline, common core was officially established as something that would be created at almost exactly the same time. secretary of state duncan is saying this is something i think we should do with it, have these national standards. all together, both for,the nga and csso ask it very clear that this was some thing being pushed all along. cluskey here to talk about, core. our first call is john.

caller: good morning. i guess my first thought is -- hello? we need to get back to the basics in education. i am an old timer, and i believe that reading, writing, arithmetic are the basics. that is where we need to focus our education. first 1 -- reading. if you can't read, you can't do any other subject. we should point to that first of all. my next comment would be on the money of a go into education. now, when the federal government it's into anything, you see a lot of waste where i see a lot of waste in k-12 education is that5% of the money goes into that goes into ed

intermediate education, which only makes up about 2% of the population. these are all really important points, and i will try to get to them as quickly as i can. first of all, you talk about the three r's, and a lot of people agree that that is an important part of education. the interesting thing about the quality of the common core is you are getting different messages about whether it is focusing on basics, on the three r's, or whether it is focusing on something more fuzzy, maybe important, but more fuzzy, and that is the idea of critical thinking. that has been a lot of problem with the common core and the debate about it. what really is it supposed to be? i would recommend that everybody read the common core standards, and you can go to i think it is commoncore.org, but just google them and you can find them, and see what they have. i think there are far more

nebulous than we are led to believe. as far as the federal money goes, this is really important. when you have any sort of centralization, and if you are talking about basically one government trying to run 100,000 about 4000 school districts, of course there is going to be massive bureaucracy because the only way you can control that is through bureaucratic control, and that means waste. and i also think it is important if you are going to talk about both of the federal government and the three r's, and ultimately what we want out of education is there is no meaningful, empirical evidence that having national standards leads to better outcomes. this is a debate we did not even get to have because race to the top basically told states before common core was finally published, the final version came out, they said you need to adopt these to compete for race to the top money, so we never even got to have a debate about whether national standardization leads to better outcomes. the evidence is it is not, but

we did not even get to talk about it. host: dave up next illinois, he is a parent, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, my kids' teachers have been the lady about the constant testing. are state and local a districts adapting to eliminating what they already do and making it into one test? they said they take tests all year long. guest: the first thing i should say is there is some separation between the common core and the testing. refers to just be standards, but these standards were again pushed into federal policy, race to the top and the standards. it had some testing, teacher quality things and other elements, so it is part of a broader, more comprehensive federal policy.

thet does through race to top and waivers require that you have testing. it is not necessarily require that you do testing every three months or something like that. the federal government paid for sbac, and parts an the latter has tests you can take as diagnostics throughout the year. you do see school districts , theyother test as well use terranova, different types of test. the fair thing to say the big common core itself does not require any testing. common core came very explicitly in federal policy that is blanketed test, but districts are also sometimes on the run, sometimes to clear by state, adding testing in addition to that, and that is up to them. host: our guest is with the cato institute, but in a past career utah high school english? host: yes -- guest: yes, very briefly, a

couple of years. and what i learned in teaching did not enforce common core, but teaching for a couple of years to teach me how difficult the job is and how truly different differing kids are, how they learn at different rates, and how amazingly you can have a while students who struggling you can see when you're having a hard time and then something cliques over the summer, and they are totally a different person, and this is i think why it is so important we not think the you can does have and haveal standard optimum outcomes. it just does not make sense when you know how different all truly are from each other. host: utah under no federal type of standard like a common core, like no child left behind. guest: i was in a parochial school, and they'd are not required to do any testing. even with common core, you've in some catholic schools a look, we're going to take the common

core, at least some part of it, importants kind of an point, which we tend to think homeschoolers and private schools will not be affected by the common core, but when you look at the total number of students, school age population, over 70% if you include kids who are in public schools in states that are using common core, over 70% of those school-aged students are subject to the common core, and that is going to lead to crowding out of tests that are available, the textbooks that are available, and this went back private schools and homeschoolers whether they like it or not. you have already seen the s.a.t. saying it will rely on the common core, the a.c.t. saying it is relying on the common core, and these are the two main entrance exams people take. the ged, the equivalency to a high school diploma, that is being linked to the common core, so if you are at all involved in

education, this is going to impact you. there is no way to escape it because it is so big. host: let's hear from a teacher. this is jackie from columbia, maryland. caller: good morning. i believe the gentleman said the three r's, absolutely, i teach math. i believe also there needs to be a common standard, and i do not think there is anything wrong with the common core state standards. i think what is wrong with what has happened with common core is the implementation has been horrible. because students, as the gentleman said earlier, some states have had very low standards, so that their school system could look really good. maryland is one of them. and when the common core i came along, it exposed the fact that there are a lot of schools with low standards or expectations of their children. now, there has not been any adjustment to the fact that if you expect a fourth grader to

understand fractions, which is what they are going to have to do, there is not knowledge meant that there was no readiness for that for the students who came, the students below fourth-grade who are now going to face the common core standards. the teachers in the elementary school are not ready to teach to the level of the common core state standards, and none of them really are, and so wrapping everybody up and expecting everyone to be ready when this is totally new, it is to me ridiculous. have aackie, do you sense of how the your teaching will change when these go into implementation? caller: my standards have not changed. i have always challenged my students. the problem is the level at which they want be students to be -- the students are not ready. for example, i teach seventh grade math. my students in baltimore city -- their ranges go from second grade level capacity, you know, where they understand math on a second grade level among up to

students who are ready to take ninth grade level, and i am teaching them all in the same room. tookhen the common core what used to be called ninth grade level math, now they brought it down to sixth and seventh grade level math, and some in eighth grade. the kids are not ready for it, so they want them to be able to do out to rub, -- to do algebra, but they are not ready for it. they have not been prepared. it is going to take years before the adjustment can be made, and there has been no acknowledgment of that. and now next year they're going to talk about testing the kids, and they are not ready. host: thank you, jackie. i appreciate the input this morning. i really do. go ahead. guest: this is a huge problem that the common core has had, the implementation. this is something that was driven by the federal government, and states really had no choice. if they wanted this race to the top money, if they wanted to get out of no child left behind,

which almost everybody seems to agree was a failure, they had to adopt these standards, and they had to adopt the federal timeline to adopt these standards, implement the testing, and that was all very much rushed. i think it was in part rushed because they did not want states to be able to back out of this after they had the time to have some debate. any states do not have debate or meaningful debate before they adopted the us because again the federal government said you need to promise to adopt these before they are even written. and what happened i think ended up surprising and a lot of supporters of the common core. w states is certainly go through the implementation process, but then when it hit the districts about a year, a year and a half ago, suddenly there was huge resistance to this. there was huge resistance because schools and districts and parents were suddenly being confronted with something they did not know anything about and in many cases they did not take it made sense. just like jackie might be talking about.

ordinarily, if they say were going to change standards, you would have a lot of time for debate, for different people to get to know what was in there, for people to talk about what makes sense and what does not make sense, and all of that was short-circuited. you see particularly in new york, which was a state that adopted the standards and got out ahead of other states and said we are going to catch this on our own. when they tested and the results came out about year ago, they tested a longer than a year ago, but the result of the year ago, there was complete turmoil in new york because they saw proficiency rates drop by about one third and everybody said -- how is this possible? where does this come from? why are you suddenly telling us our kids are not proficient when a lot of them were before? and a lot of it was implementation, using new tests oldh the ne curriculum. the impetus for this with the government that adopted testing

and do it right now. host: stella off of twitter -- how many days of testing will common core involved, how many months devoted toward teaching for the testing? guest: that we do not know. i can vary from district to district and state to state and there have been some assessment saying how long we have to spend on testing, how long should you spend on it, how long have states spent on testing until now, and let's be clear -- testing has been out before common core. host: we heard about these issues, no child left behind. guest: yeah, no child left behind said you have to test. these common core tests are supposed be longer, more in-depth, supposed to be more than just multiple choice free writing at things like that. or at least be on multiple choice. it takes more time to grade. so the tests will be longer, but he district may just want to -- or the state typically wants this, so the state, in less they give this earth a vote to do it on their own, may just want to do common core testing, in which

case they do not have to spend as much time as they might think. if they continue to do other kind of tests, which are different, the terranovas, and the stamfords, that will add to the time testing. it is important to understand that you can do a paper test, you can do it online. sbac also is online. and that leads to lots of questions about the technology to do it, how are you going to have every kid have access to computers, does that mean you have a longer tested window, each child may not spend as much time, so there is a lot of playing in the numbers, how much testing and how long. host: neal mccluskey of the cato institute joining us. our next call is from maryland, hello, daniel, go ahead. morning, everyone. thank you for taking my call. i am so happy we are talking about this. first of all, i think this is a huge issue. personally i have not seen so much coverage or media

information about this kind of thing. so i think that this kind of thing was kind of rushed through and states and schools were not able to kind of give feedback as a to dohey would deal this or if there was something actually want to do, and so now you are seeing the problem of schools and what you have already mentioned, and with the teacher, the prior caller mentioned. so yeah, i definitely think that this is kind of a fundamental question of government, you know, do we want the government to just kind of rushed and implement something and implement something it is kind of off the bat do it like this? or do we want more localized efforts for the students? and if you look at the environment for students, it is very personalized. not like every child fits one size. every child is different. so i think it is very, very difficult for a massive

bureaucracy like the federal government to implement this kind of thing and throw money at it. and then schools feel obligated to comply with those standards, and it just turns into a big mess. host: ok, thank you. guest: this is again an excellent point that common core sort of snuck up on the public. i think again this was largely a function of the federal government. there is no question "benchmarking for success," be in g-8 report -- the nga report, when race to the top came outcome imploring coercion to adopt national standards as part of race to the top, and it was all caps i think very quite because at the time, remember, most people were focusing on the great recession. we are really at the low point of the great recession. and so that is why we don't see people suddenly becoming aware of common core i tell about a

year and a half ago when it actually hit implementation level of districts and schools and people said -- what is this? where did it come from? what is in it? why do we have to use this? and if you look at polling, it is still 60% of people who say -- i have never even heard of the common core. and this is something that is supposed to transform if you listen to supporters of common core, it is supposed to transform in many ways american education. well, if you are going to try to do something that is transformative, you certainly need to have a lot of public debate, and we never had that. i think that is part of what is fueling opposition to this, and sometimes kind of angry opposition because people feel like this was hoisted on them and they had no say. host: jen asks the question -- senate students learn the same stuff so they are on the same page when they get to college? guest: all people are different. i certainly saee why they

will say look, you are mississippi or in massachusetts, you do not want to shortchange someone, but the fact of the matter is some people want to become engineers and they are really good at what it takes to become an engineer. they should be on a totally different path, or a largely different path than somebody like me who was an english major. i am going to be doing different things that i am probably better at. i am better at english than i am a science or mathematics. any other engineering major is better at science and they are at writing an essay. being college ready is a different thing for different people largely depending on what you want to go into. and then some people may want to go into a vocation. they should be on a different track. they learn to do what they want to do. so it sounds certainly equitable to say everybody should be doing the same thing at the same time until you realize that all kids, all people are different and therefore should not be doing the same thing at the same time. and in many cases cannot because

they have different things that they are good at war not but our don't want to do. host: stacy from louisiana, a parent, good morning. caller: yes, i was wondering about kids that do well during , are they being held back if they don't do well? guest: that is a good question. that depends on your state. different states have different ramifications for students depending how they do. or many states, if you do not dwell on common core, it does not mean anything for the student. in other states, they may have is aligned with common core, they may have their own exams. there are states is a if you want to graduate or if you're going to advance from one grade to another, you have to get a tests. test -- score on

the common core as part of race to the top or waiver is this not say d.c. to be high stakes. they are, though, high-stakes for schools and districts. they might not take a test that seriously as he would like them too, and that is a big problem if the school or district is held accountable for those results. the "washington journal" has a article about how much reading has changed. in washington, four points, and hawaii and georgia. rhode island, new york, and delaware saw no increases. these are the 12 states that received race to the top grants. is it working? guest: the problem is you cannot

make a connection with this to race to the top. race to the top is in most cases still being implemented. so when you had a-your horizons to put this together, and in many cases this has been extended. we have seen depending on the in thencreases over time national assessment of educational progress scores. it has been impossible to connect that to race to the top. it has been impossible to connect that to no child left behind. what we have seen is if you look historically at the long-term trends made, and there are really two different made, one is not a long-term trend that changes all the time, the other is from the early 1970's, and it is supposed be a constant test so you can say it is equivalent to the 2000's. we had ups and downs regardless of policy, and then once you get to high school, 12 graders absolutely flat for well over four decades, which means none of this is taking. it is impossible to say race to the top is causing anything a

particular right now because it is still being implemented. the fact is if you look at our best rates, the long-term trends, from the final product of our school, if you want to call it that, the high school seniors, know that is ultimately seems to work, and that is consistent with what people across the spectrum have said why common core will not work. education analysts have said we have seen the state standards, and the state standards have almost no impact on outcomes, so there is no reason to expect that national standards will. host: a teacher joins us from tennessee, this is gary, hello. caller: before i get to my point about any sort of pilot program for common core, i would like to geniust diversity is a for innovation. i am an owner of an engineering company. you have people with different insights, they can look at different problems differently. that is how you innovate. so having everybody be the same in our country would be suicide

for entrepreneurship and innovation. plus, i have never seen a pilot program for common core. why are we going to stand the entire education system in our for ay on its ear program that has never been vetted or piloted? guest: that is something we have been hearing. we are told it is internationally benchmarked and that is all we are supposed to rely on. it has never been pilot tested. no one has said let's try this in a district or a state. this is a really important point that states in our federalist systems are supposed be laboratories of democracy where one or two states can try something, and that if it does not work, other states are not taken down with it, so they can try it, see if it works. other states if they like it they can try it, they can adjust it, but this is a fundamental protection. one of the reasons we tell people to diversify when they invested so you do not have, to use the cliché, all of your eggs in one basket because if you are wrong, everything goes down.

haveis why we want to competing standards. we do not want states to all be coerced to use the same thing because if it is wrong, we all go down. and even if it is not that bad, we do not see what is better because we do not have competition, and of course you are right that there are different ways to look at different problems, and there is not one solution to many problems, and we need to let that adversity thrive, not suffocate it. host: that was gary. is from oak hill, west virginia on our others line. hi. caller: hi. good morning. the guest speaker is saying that every child is different. i did not teach children. in hospitals who advance in their career in food service. i had one student who do the

stern, but when it came to testing, she could not equate what she had learned to the test. she knew it when i asked her. when she did the material for the course, and this course was through penn state, she knew it, but testing was her downfall. and so this is what i am wondering -- what is going to theyn when kids cannot -- fail to really understand the test? because you are saying everybody is different, and that is what i adultsmy work with taking tests. thet: yeah, well, so ramifications for this are going to bury from state to state. in some cases, it will have immediate impact on students, and some it will just be the school or the district. but this is absolutely an

important point that we need to understand that even when it comes to test taking, some people have different responses to taking a test to ban other people, and we also need to recognize that the conditions of a test will be different from day to day, so you have some kids that are not doing well on sundays, you might have a situation where, you know, it is a really cold room for some kids or it is too warm for other kids, and it really serious concern that i think people across the board, whether you like common core or not have, is that these tests that are connected through common core and race to the top through tovers, som my to supposed be online, will states have the technological ability and the bandwidth to execute these tests where you do not have kids who are suddenly unable to accept the test for the computer breaks down in the middle of the test or kids might have trouble typing? really bige are issues in big concerns i think across the board about how you

are even going to implement ,hese tests so that it is fair understanding of the conditions when it is online could change a lot pretty graphically because of technology. host: one of the people weighing in on common core is the national urban league -- only 16% of black students read at or above grade level compared with 44% of whites. guest: certainly a lot of this is driven by the idea, and i think it is well-intentioned. look, there are some groups of people and some schools that are not doing as well, and we want to find a way to deliver education where we can see who those people are and improve things for them. the problem is we have tried this from a top-down approach for a long time, no child left behind did that. generally it is considered a failure. if you look at test scores, those grades courts are totally flat. we sell bigger increases at times that were not common core.

is toe ultimately need move to a system where you can personalize education as much is possible because alternately a child may belong to a group but they are not that group. we all belong to lots of different routes, and you want to be able to tailor education to the individual student, not based on their race and their religion or their economic status but on what they need, and this does not do that. it says, well, everybody is essentially the same and we are going to treat them as if they were identical. host: is there an effective way to cater to a classroom of units students then? guest: that gets you going in the opposite direction of what we have done. we have got to greater and greater centralization. what we need is more and more decentralization. i think that means a school choice. you attach money to a student and you let them choose a school. you give the educators, the people actually with the students, the freedom to start different schools, to try different things, and you let

unique subsets of kids find schools that are geared to their unique needs. that is what we need. we also see the beginning of -- thanks to technology -- things like choice where you can go to a school that does not offer the particular course you want, maybe because there are no kids in the school who needed or wanted. you go online and you can get a bunch of kids from around the thee, potentially around country, who wants that course and they can get it. that is what we need to focus on is decentralization of the provision of education and allowing people to find what is best for their unique child, and to get a way, i think, from saying that each style is from whatever group we think is most important. it is not. all caps are unique. charter schools fit into that? guest: charter schools are an effort to get these more unique schools i can focus on unique subsets of kids or offer different programs that to

traditional public schools cannot. a charter school, per people who do not know, is a public school that is authorized to operate by some public entity. usually it is a school district, and some states it can be a public college or university. private entitya runs it. the important point to understand for common core though it is common core eliminates a great deal of that ability to be unique, and i should say this really came to no child left behind, which no child left behind said all public schools have state standards and state tests. now the common course of everybody regardless of your state has to use one standard or one test. and that means charters to a large extent cannot be different because they are going to be held accountable to the exact same standards and tests as everybody else, so the charter idea with going in the right direction, and it is still good to do something differently, but

we are taking away even that both with the federal government having state standards and test, and not telling them so severely what those must be. carolina, thish is daniel, and he is a teacher, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question lies in jurisdiction in the area you have been saying. when you go back to the 10th amendment and even the department of education formation act of 1979, written in there is the language that the federal government should not have control and mandate curriculum, you go to no child left behind, and there are actually four areas mentioned there, curriculum, assessment, teacher certification, and then also a fourth area of student database. yet it seems in each one of these areas there have been withal and roads to those

in bloom for the national database, you have the national teacher certification going on, the national assessment with smarter balanced andy park podiums -- and the park podiums. in essence, the federal government has essentially ignore these policies. what is the road back? how do we break this and get this back to where it ought to be with the states and the local education agencies? governmentfederal does not have constitutional authority to do any of this, regardless of what has been written and subsequent statute. he federal government can only do what is in the specific enumerated powers in the constitution. education is not in there. this leads us to our solution. one is you need to have voters who vote on people based on a thing look, i'm actually going to follow the constitution, what powers are given the federal government. i'm not going to take ones that

are not. but the way that the federal government has done this is they cannot just dictate to the state and say look, you are going to have the standards and tests, unless they offer the money, and that is what they have done for a very long time. if you're going to follow and federal rules, it is because you have taken federal money. that is why you have common core supporters in saying this is voluntary. atheist states do not want to do it, they do not have to remember one that taxpayers who live in the state have no choice about paying those taxes to begin with, and then this is also a very large amount of money. especially when you are talking about no child left behind, when they had appropriations for some states over $1 billion. that is a lot of money to expect state legislatures to say ok, i am going to turn down that $1 billion that came from i taxpayers to begin with because i want to be able to run my own system. let's be clear -- that means

this is de facto required. the interesting thing is that common core supporters will say it is voluntary with the tickets because you do not have to take the money for that they could say the same thing about no child left behind. turn down all that federal money -- you do not have to follow the ises, but they know that totally irrational to expect that any state is going to turn it down that much money. so what has to happen is people recognize that the federal government is essentially buying compliance public taxpayer money that the taxpayers have no choice but to turn over to begin with. host: bonnie from maryland, parents, good morning. caller: hi. you are getting a lot of information on your, and thank you for taking my call. two children, a daughter that has already graduated in 2009 and then my son is currently in eighth grade. child, and he has

adhd. youoncern is again that know, they're trying to push this common core across the board. you have children that have needs that, like you said, you have one person that wants to manage, the other person cannot comprehend it cannot get to that level. because the responsibility goes back to the god that the thank teacher, you know, both my kids dealt with have gone over and above what their requirements are in order to help these children, and it makes it hard for them because of the fact they are having to go, in order to get the funding, they have to go by what is required of them. sense, each child may or may not be left behind. so what do we do to change this? guest: those are great points,

and i think the first thing that people have to do is they have to be very clear i think when they are voting and when they are talking to their elected representatives to say we do not want the federal government putting these requirements on us. acting as if all kids are identical. we also have to recognize that this happens at the state level and often at the local level, especially if you are talking about very big districts. we think of new york city -- over one million kids. that is a huge district, bigger than many states. ultimately what has to happen is i think we really need to empower parents, and i made to connect the money to a child and let them decide where they go. but certainly short of that, it is much better to say look, at least let local communities make these decisions, give schools, the public schools autonomy that serve the district. give them autonomy to do what they think is best for their unique populations of students, but i think until you see a popular outcry to elected

representatives saying we are tired of having this dictated to us, it is not going to change. i think one of the good things with common core and the reaction to it is you now have a very grassroots driven opposition to it, including a lot of teachers who may actually like the quality of the common core but hate the lockstep accountability that goes with it sort of meeting up with people who are big supporters of federalism and want local control and they are all saying -- we are tired of having these things impose on us when we know does not make sense. years left oftwo this administration, but what is the long-term impact with common core? guest: that is a really good question. one of the drivers, what really got states hoped on, gore was race to the top, but that was really a one-shot deal. kept them on was the waivers. he wavers were able to get traction because congress cannot

agree with no child left behind. everybody knows they do not like it, but they cannot figure out how to change it. so what we do with these waivers that locke states in is congress can decide whether they can agree with what to do with no child left behind, and then they can put law and plays that either keeps common core or eliminates common core and the mechanism, or maybe do something in between, but i think that is what will alternately change it is sooner or later, there is that to be a change in congress where they can agree on how they want to change the law. host: neal mccluskey with the cato institute, he is the associate director for the center for educational freedom, and he has been our guest talking about the common core. mr. mccluskey, thank you. guest: my pleasure, thank you. host: coming up next, we will hear about wall street, going back to 2007, 2 thousand eight,

the financial crisis. a lot of people came under investigation, but what happened as far as convictions are concerned. jesse eisinger from prop ublica will be our guest to talk about that. later, we will talk about our economy. again, that is as "washington journal" continues right after this. ♪ >> the biggest challenge especially in the house, and that is where we see it occur, in the house, the biggest challenge a republican is going to face is in a primary from somebody more conservative than he or she is. in almost every district, that is the case, so that is what they are worried about. they are worried about being challenge from the right, so reaching across the make tough compromises. i think we have gotten a system

that we designed. as a country. when we created the -- i not even sure the people who fully created these districts realized exactly how profound the somecations could be, but democrats, particularly minority democrats, have been in on this too. there have been some african americans who want to be sure that they have reliably african-american districts, one that has a large percentage of african-american voters, so that they can be sure they have representation in congress. >> this weekend on c-span, from the anti-defamation league, demographics, redistricting, antirepublican party this morning just after 11:00 eastern. later on c-span, the white house correspondents' dinner. mchalent obama and joel of nbc's "community."

that is live at 6:00. and live sunday on booktv, former gang member, community activist, and political handed rodriguez will take your calls and comments "in-depth" at noon on c-span2. and on american history tv, a history of hawaii and the sugar industry tomorrow night at 9:35 p.m. on c-span3. >> almost 5000 students enter this year's c-span's student cam video competition on the most important issue congress should consider in 2014. we talked to the top five winners about their documentaries. >> a moment where we all decided that this is going to be our topic was when there was an article on fracking in our local newspaper, and is that how fracking was happening two miles from our house. so it is a national problem, and now it is also a local problem, so we are very passionate about the subject and it seemed

obvious that that is what our topic should be. >> food is essential to life. it transcends everything. everybody requires food to live. so i figured the fact that a lot of people do not know what is being done to our food supply, and it is cede this food regularly without knowing what is inside it, i found that very concerning, so that is why i chose the topic. >> there is a lot more that you don't know, and it is hard for the average person to know exactly what is going on because they don't know what is going on, and i think it depends -- do you value your security over your privacy or your privacy over your security? >> hear more from the top student cam winners this morning on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest was a from new york, jesse eisinger from propublica, also from the "new york times."

i would just read you the headline -- why only one top anchor went to jail for the financial crisis. case?figure, is that the singer, is that the case? guest: it is the case. only 1 wall st person went to our history, we usually find crimes and lock people up for them. >> tell us about this person and tell us how he went to jail. karim, not exactly a household name pulls up he was an executive at credit squeeze, and he was four rungs from the ceo. he is an egyptian born executive who oversaw traders do complex mortgage securities. he grew up in the upper peninsula of michigan, and at a in the earlyt

stages of the crisis, his traders lied about the value of their mortgage backed securities, and he knew about that, and he sort of looked the other way, so he was guilty, and he pled guilty, and he is now in prison. >> so there is the one conviction, but compare that to the number of investigations, particularly stemming out of the financial crisis of 2007, 2008, what is the ratio there? they: i don't not think have never been enumerated, but there were investigations into investment banks, commercial banks, mortgage banks, hedge funds, special portfolio managers, across the country, there were investigations, and none of them, except for the one against kareem, bore criminal ,ruit, which is fairly bizarre i think, and a lot of people have questioned this, and i set out to try to understand what

exactly had happened. as far as the actual looking in the investigation, as far as the criminal acts, what is the crime or least what are the types of crimes being investigated as a result of these investigations? the question was whether there were crimes committed, and a lot of prosecutors will say there simply were not crimes committed, but i think that strains credulity, there were a variety of types of crimes. one large thing was what kareem serageldin was found guilty was, which is lying about the value of your assets, that can be a crime if you knowingly do it with intent. the second thing is misleading andpublic about your books records. that also, i believe, happened. the question is whether the top executive know about it. there is another bucket, which is misleading people when you are selling something. what happened in the crisis was

that a lot of people sold mortgages to investment banks that got sold to customers that they knew were rotten, and they it,not tell anybody about and then people on wall street constructed complex mortgage securities, some of them secretly bet against them, building them to fail, and i think in some ways that may have been criminal. nothing was ever proven or charged, but i think that should have been explored more fully. host: one of the things you write about, mr. eisinger, in your piece, taking a look at why only one land in jail, you said the cases were complex to investigate and would have been infernally difficult to explain to juries. can you expand on that? guest: sure. i do not think that as an excuse, but it is certainly a fact that if you have to take a case where you need to explain what a collateralized debt obligation is and then explain what a credit default slot is

and then explain that you are going sort, you know, at this eyes have juries' eye glazed over. before you have gotten to the jury, you have to go and figure out whether there was a crime committed. there is not a kilo of cocaine on the table, as a prosecutor once told me, in an insider trading case, which is another security fraud case, you have got a discrete moment of time were a crime was almost clearly committed, and then you go about trying to figure out who committed it. that is like a crime like murder. you know the crime was committed, and you have to figure out whodunit. in the securities fraud case, often you need to figure out whether there was a crime committed at all in the first place, and that could take years. these are very difficult cases, and i do grant that to prosecutors, that lots of

people's jobs are hard. it is not an excuse when you fail. host: is visible to say it is hard to prove a case if someone was being reckless with the way they were handling money or the size of securities -- that would actually constitute a crime? guest: that is exactly the point here is that a lot of this, a lot of the crisis, in fact i think the majority of the crisis was caused by recklessness and stupidity, and is much as i would like to make that illegal, and many of us would, it is not. in the united states. part ofis the biggest what caused the crisis -- a failure of bankers to act stupidity,, enormous a lot taking advantage of the stupidity, and a lot of regulatory, disastrous regulatory failures and gaps in our regulation. but that does not preclude that there were crimes committed, and in my view, there likely were,

and especially when some of these financial institutions were teetering on the brink and needed to show public confidence about the state of affairs. and in that kind of crisis moments, people often lie, and i suspect that people did. host: in mr. serageldin's case, what was it sentence? guest: he was sentenced to 30 months in prison in pennsylvania. he is a foreign national, so it is a little bit worse than the kind of country club white-collar prison that some of us have in our minds. this is a fairly tough facility, and he is in a room with about 70 other people in a bunk. no more.ive books and he is subject to a lot of constricted movements. this is an ono cakewalk.

host: our guest is jesse eisinger, publisher for the "new york times," he is talking about investigations of the 2007, 2008 financial crisis. if you are asking a question, here are the numbers, (202) 585-3880 for democrats, (202) 585-3881 for the publicans, and (202) 585-3882 for independents. here is the piece -- "why only one top banker went to jail for the financial crisis." fromeen is up first boulder, colorado, on our democratic line. caller: good morning. i want to ask jesse, i watched the bailout hearings, and the economy is not my strength by any means, but i am watching the hearings is to watch and learn, and i watched most of them come and like you are talking about with the credit assault flops and the different language, the different language in the banking world, i was watching our congress people's eyes glaze

over, and i thought oh, my god cometh they have no idea what these guys are talking about, you know, we are in deep trouble because i mean i certainly did not know, but our congress have the willg to to do the deeper investigations and the accountability, but i listened to this guy, professor william black, who was the head that she was an attorney, a professor, and i believe one of the head investigators into the savings and loan scandal. what is youtube videos, occupy l.a. or something like that, but anyway, he said that during the savings and loan scandal, there were 10,000, they made 10,000 prosecutors real referrals, and out of that, over 1000 people were prosecuted. now, he claims the department of justice has all the tools they need to prosecute these individuals, but that the department of justice as well is our congress do not have the will to prosecute post up host.

host: we will leave it there. jesse eisinger. guest: i know bill, and i believe he is right about most of this. i disagree with him about the tool's, and part of my argument in the piece is that the department of justice has actually gradually lost some tools through its own mistakes, fiascoes, prosecutorial overreach, adverse ruling from the court over the last decade, and now i don't think that any of the tools, especially oolividually, anyone t was particularly momentous when they lost it, but it added up to a significant powershift to the defense bar, and i think the department of justice has not grappled with it. but i do also agree essentially that this was a failure of will, a failure to coordinate natural resources and really make this a priority. it is a multifaceted disaster

that we have on our hands with the department of justice. host: mr. eisinger, one of the things he wrote about any piece, a gentleman named larry thompson, the former deputy attorney general 2001 to 2003. he wrote a memo. what was that memo and did it affect the types of investigations that we haven't to these matters? guest: yes. the early bush administration, contrary to what popular notion, was actually quite tough on corporate crime. this was in the wake of the enron and worldcom accounting scandals at the largest companies in the united states, and there were serious prosecutions, including of some of george bush's close political allies. larry thompson was the deputy attorney general at the time, and they formulated, he formulated in conjunction with his colleagues, a memo of how to andfter corporate criminals

how to investigate and prosecute corporations. this was actually building on work, ironically, that eric holder, who was then deputy under janet reno in the clinton administration, had first laid out. this was quite a tough memo, and immediately created an enormous backlash by the corporate lobby, the white-collar defense bar, and that the prosecutors's implemented this memo from larry thompson, who was quite tough on corporate criminals, they overreached and it started to get rolled back over the decade, and that is one of the problems with how they lost these tools in learning how to investigate and prosecute crimes. host: when you say overreach, is it because they showed too much teeth in the matter? guest: yes, one of the seminal cases, well there were 2, 1 is arthur anderson. arthur andersen was the accounting firm that enabled and

run, and it was a recidivist firm. it had health accounting fraudsters like waste management and sunbeam and had settled for notional amounts of money, almost the cost of doing business. in fact, they even thought of it as a cost of doing business, which is completely anathema to preventing corporate crime. intron, arthurof andersen partners destroyed documents, and the department of justice felt it had no choice and indicted the firm. after the indictment, the firm went out of business. it put tens of thousands of people on the street, and almost immediately, prosecutors, some prosecutors and many people thought that this had been a disastrous mistake, an overreach, and subsequently, the supreme court for somewhat technical reasons overturned the conviction. they did not say arthur andersen

was in a thing, but they did say that the conviction was wrong. so the department of justice took a lesson from this and the lesson was -- we should really be extraordinarily cautious about indicting corporations. in fact, we should be deeply fearful of it. i think they grossly over learned the lesson from arthur andersen. subsequently, they were investigating tax fraudsters at andher counting firm, kpmg, try to pressure kpmg to stop paying the attorneys fees for the employees under investigation. they tried to make the company waive its corporate privilege so attorney would waive lien privilege, which is something that corporations had ahind often, and a judge in scathing ruling said that the prosecutors had violated the constitution, violated the constitutional rights of these defendants, and that also led to this rolling back of these

prosecutorial powers and techniques, which has led them to really be rendered unable to to investigate people at the higher echelon of corporate america. host: this is peter on our republican line. caller: mr. eisinger, no comment, this was a failure of government basically. i would like to give context to the situation. in the late 1970's during the carter administration, they develop the community reinvestment act, which made fannie and freddie about three percent of their purchases of the prime mortgages. in 1995, there was a lot of pressure on the clinton administration to increase the amount of mortgages that were given to poor and minority people, so clinton developed these public-write it harder ships, which forced th

fannie and freddie to increase their subprime mortgages. at what happened at that time, it was requiring that fannie and freddie by 55% of their purchases, sub prime mortgages. unfortunately, this policy was through into the bushes administration post up mr. bush increased his investment by giving a $13,000 tax credits to people, first-time home mortgages. host: with all the context, if you have a question for our guest, please. why mr. bush did not reduce the mandates on freddie and fannie because banks were being punished for not supplying mortgages to poor people, and mr. bush continued that policy,

to his destruction. host: ok. mr. eisinger. guest: this is a myth. you are almost entirely incorrect, i am sorry to say. it has been widely debunked it is kind of right wing fantasy that continues to live in certain circles, but very quickly, fannie and freddie actually lost shares during the bubble. fannie and freddie's mortgages have performed vastly better than private mortgages. the entities that were the worst of theers and the heart housing mortgage bubble will actually not subject to the community reinvestment act, and int of the crisis was collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps with aig, which were -- have nothing community the reinvestment act or mortgages, so this was really a private problem. this was not caused by the

government. that is not to say that there a normative government regulatory failures, but they were regulatory failures of deregulation and lack of regulation rather than overregulation of the mortgages, and i encourage you to read more widely because that is basically not true. from steve is up next california on our independent line for jesse eisinger. caller: mr. eisinger, a lot of what happened started here in the inland empire in california. i do not understand -- it took me a long time to understand what happened. it was not illegal, like you said, and no money down? stated income? and these adjustable's they came up with. it was not illegal, but i mean, it was -- people do not realize i think how much of a crisis it was. hadink that the government

not handled it correctly. we very easily could have slipped into a depression. you.: i agree with we could have easily slipped into a depression. theink that we did have worst financial crisis since the great depression, and we have still not recovered from it. the economy is still reeling from it. i think that some of the activity was actually illegal. i think there was a series of predatoryending -- lending that should have been more significantly investigated. a bit ofk there was complicity on the part of borrowers to some extent. no one can walk into a bank and demand alone and get a loan from a bank that isn't willing to give it. the heart of lending is the agency of lending -- the bank

itself. this is a crisis. it was a crisis that had many forms. many causes. there was a deregulated financial system and subsequently, there were crimes that were inadequately investigated by the department of justice. our guest covers wall street and finance and writes a regular column for the new york times. a story found in the magazine up theour times looking at -- new york times looking at the conviction. thisr as the reasons why is happening, you say the very ambition of prosecutors played a prominent role. government lawyers don't want to spend their entire careers in the public sector. i think you have seen this play out, especially acutely in the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan.

securitiese premier office in the country. he has emphasized insider-trading cases. they have racked up a spectacular record. 480 one 80 insider-trading wins. insider-trading turns out to be a much easier task to take. the kind of case earlier that is easier to prove. a jury understands it more easily and you get on the front page of the wall street journal. you seem to be a hero. then, when you go and put your resume out to the firms to get a times the money to be partner there, you have made your reputation. what you haven't done is take on the highest players at the top edge lawns of corporate -- top

echelons of corporate america. they missed the opportunity and failed in trying to address the really significant crime. many prosecutors and former prosecutors told me that themselves. these them told me, insider-trading cases made our careers, but they don't change the world. another told me that he thought the government had failed. host: our next call is jerry from indiana. on our democrats line. lehman brothers was one of the big culprits in this whole ps go. the ceo -- this whole fiasco. why wasn't the ceo prosecuted? walked throughle the lehman brothers investigation.

what i think ultimately happened was, there were not adequate resources put into it by the department of justice. they got overwhelmed and there was a lack of coordination. it was assigned to three different offices. push,uggests an enormous but broke up the investigation and rendered it inadequate. to onemately came down woman in the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan. she was very confident and smart. that is not the kind of resources to bring to such a complex calamity. i don't think the ceo was adequately investigated. i don't think they adequately investigated the cfos who misrepresented the state of lehman brothers in the months

leading up to its failure. the ceo still a multimillionaire. he's living a fairly quiet life, trying to stay out of the limelight. feeling for the good about himself because he is a free man. host: what's the role of the securities and exchange commission? guest: they blew it as well. i don't think they adequately sanctioned firms. they certainly did not refer enough criminal cases to the doj. they tried to be aggressive ing firms, but they also have had an erosion of investigative trials. they have lost some trials, which have been a significant black eye.

the current commissioner has a big job in front of her to try to improve the morale of the up the skill set. whether she is the right person somewhatjob, i'm skippable. she had been a white-collar defense attorney, representing some of the highest, most who hadt defendants been investigated in the wake of the financial crisis. she had previously been a well-respected u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. lie is a instincts question that has not been answered. host: have we seen the ends of these types of cases going forward? guest: yes. the financial crisis investigations are largely over. they have made unusual

statements, saying that they have wound up investigations. usually they don't do that. we may see some civil actions still. the statute of limitations has not expired on some civil charges. that may still happen. as for criminal charges, no one is going to go to prison for the financial crisis. host: republican line. california. caller: good morning. i don't think i have heard you talk about the repeal of glass -- they became a lehman brothers type of business. they mixed conservative loans with ridiculous derivative investments. that is what caused the implosion 13 years later. it's amazing that he is

disregarding the whole aspect of individuals, homebuyers who were acting completely responsible and mortgaging down on their home loans. it is attributable to the derivatives. 300 billion. frome have walked away their home loans. nobody forced them to buy those homes. in certain states like florida and nevada, 35% of the home sales were second homes. just likeing a risk they did in the tech boom. they got loans attached and walk away from them. the viewer is exactly repeal whiche gradually happened over the

decade of the 1990's was a big mistake. a democraticnder president and a republican congress. administration was part of the deregulation of the financial industry, which was a .isastrous mistake or di it's a failure, certainly. homeownersindividual , i don't think that's relevant to the department of justice's approach to corporate white-collar investigations and whether they can prosecute adequately the individuals at the highest echelons of corporate america, which is what i'm focused on. host: was wall streethol scared of what was going on with prosecutions? guest: they purport to be quite

scared about it. they lawyered up. they feel aggrieved and persecuted. really feark they the government anymore. they certainly don't fear the fcc. one defense lawyer said to me once that it's not practice to fcc because they are so incompetent. that theve understood department of justice is not competent either. i don't want to minimize this. prosecutorial power is an awesome power. bringing the government's attention can be a terrifying and all something. even for a wealthy individual or ceo.

we don't want persecutors to overreach or abuse the constitutional right of people, even ceos. what we want them to do is adequately investigate and have the skill set to investigate. investigations of individuals are very different from investigations of corporations. especially if you are focused on settling with the corporation. what has happened is the balance has tipped and the pendulum has swung toward the settlements, deferred prosecutions. this has gone from investigations of individuals, which are painstaking and take a long time. you need to work your way up to put people and get to the top. they are arrested, they do what is known in finances as an expected value analysis. they weigh the cost of fighting with the best and worst outcomes. guest: you are going up against

people who do finance for a living. they will run the odds. the odds tip in their favor, when they resist cooperation. they also understand that if they can remember things or claim that they did everything with the best of intent, a lot of corporate, white-collar crime comes down to what's in your heart or what's in your head. prosecutors need to read your mind and know your secret feelings. did you intend to lie about that or did you just make a mistake? should you have been informed about this? were you informed about this? those things are very hard to find. these cases are really not easy to investigate. as i said earlier, just because job is hard,r's it's no excuse. these guys are plain at the top of their game here and they need

to be good at their job. host: janice from nashville, tennessee. independent line. longtime detroit guy. a few questions. it would help if we simplified the language. the writer is talking in terms intellectual content that people don't understand. if you put it into layman's terms, there was a wonderful book, the prince of darkness. he was asked about it and you he said you have to talk to the people. i would love to hear your thoughts on the incestuous nature of big business. they extort money. where is the reciprocity to protect the people? i see none. the conversation is way too soft in terms of excuses and

inadequacy. if you have the brightest people of running the country, the system will fail. the housing market, banking market, real estate market -- it's a joke. i would love to hear your comment about reaganomics. i think there are reasons for our systems. i want to set out to try to explore them. that is what i try to do in the piece. there are these ideas floating around that there is a conspiracy. maybe the treasury secretary brought eric holder into a room and said, we will not prosecute the banks. that did not happen. what i think happened was that there was a series of mistakes and fiascoes and adverse rulings from the courts. these are complex as tums.

-- complex systems. there is an incestuous revolving door where people from white-collar firms go to the government and become prosecutors or become executives in the department of justice or high-level fcc executives. firmshey go back to those and are preserving their viability to go back to be a partner. you want to do certain things and achieve certain goals. but you are very worried about rocking the boat. also worried about losing, which is embarrassing and carries a taint. this is a big problem. we have a big problem with the revolving door. there are these other issues where they have lost tools. it's a complex mix of factors

that have led us to where we are today. host: glenda from savannah, georgia. democrats line. caller: good morning. i have learned something. i wish i could incorporate myself because i would have religious rights and free speech rights. then i would never have to do -- i call because of martha stewart. perp walk and the they televised it. they had a long list of things she was charged with. she only ended up being indicted for lying to the fbi. she really served her time and she was embarrassed in front of the nation. i would think, if some executive mygns some papers saying, " most important person is my investor," i would think there is something they could get to

make them do the perp walk. guest: i think the martha stewart prosecution was overreached. it was fairly silly. she did lie to the fbi. illegal. foolish and the prosecutors get angry about that. i don't think she was one of the more serious corporate criminals. corporateera in which ceos had real fears that they could be sent to prison. , martha stewart all went to prison for crimes. what we have lost now in this country is the ability to adequately investigate people in

.he c suite for crime it goes beyond the big banks. it goes beyond the financial crisis. i think this is a white collar crisis that goes into the pharmaceutical industry am a big -- this erosion of investigative skill set and at thekill set department of justice that gives rise to corporate executive impunity. host: she mentioned the perp walk. one who is mentioned in perp walkthem fashion. guest: he was a grandstanding egomaniac who was overly aggressive. in the probably needed wake of the financial crisis was somebody like giuliani or

because these guys did not really care about their good standing in the corporate, white-collar world. to preserve trying the viability to go and make a lot of money in the private sector. ure lyricalt ambitions -- future political ambitions. what they did have was a fearlessness. we needed some of that. we needed a ulysses s. grant. what we got was a bunch of mcclellan's. host: danielle from california. independent line. i am a multimillion dollar investor. ira present -- i represent

investors who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars. the management corporations manage the property in such a 15%they charge interest on the debts. the debts are such an amount that when the property is sold, when there are debts that are not legitimate and are paid, the tenant is left penniless. i have been dealing with people and i'm trying to help them before the attorney general's office. some have committed suicide. and are elderly citizens these management companies are preying on senior citizens. addressed?t be

is that the same as arthur andersen or the lehman brothers? i'm sorry to hear about your case. i'm not familiar with it. failedent wildly homeowners who were deeply underwater in their homes and is were foreclosed on. this was a policy disaster from the obama administration were they implemented program after program after program that was wildly inadequate. they refused to fix it -- did not address it to fix it quickly enough. there was a big concern that fixing that and helping

homeowners would hurt the banks. , ahink this is a scandal tragedy for the country. individual homeowners were deeply harmed by it. 's piece in eisinger the new york times. thanks for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take a look at the latest jobs numbers that came out. the unemployment rate falling to 6.3%. 288,000 jobs added. towant to get your reaction the jobless rate and your perspective on it. atyou are employed, call us (202) 585-3880. .nemployed, (202) 585-3881 if you found a job in the last buried we) 585-3882

are interested in your perspective on these latest job figures. the rate of the jobs being created in the united states as a whole. starts our6:00 coverage of the white house correspondents dinner. you will see it from start to finish with no interruption. not only can you watch it on television -- if you go to our online sources, we will provide content for you there as well. coverage of the correspondents dinner, live tonight at 6:00. go to our website for more information. the head of the association, the president gave an interview to c-span and talked about the history of this situation and the dinner. it happens to be exactly 100 years ago when it was founded. by a small group of 11 finance

reporters. was starting to have a press conferences and he did not know how to attend. they said, we will pick the reporters. said, no, we will set up our own association. >> tells about the history of the dinner. >> it started in 1921. we started as a dinner with the white house staff and reporters. it was smaller back then. we do not get the first president until calvin coolidge. we have had every president come since then. this dinner has grown exponentially in size. 2600 people now. our main celebrity as the president of the united states. he has come every year since 1981. >> you are talking about how

large it's gone. how has it changed and evolved over the years? guest: there is no smoking at there's no smoking at the dinner. there are waiters who have been attending for 40 years. i asked them the same thing. the drinking has changed. reporters used to drink many bottles of scotch, whiskey at every table. there is a lot less drinking. more wine and a lot of fruit flavored drink. we have had hollywood celebrities. the 40's we would have multiple entertainers, including frank sinatra and bing crosby. we still have entertainers. barbra streisand came to our her first dinner in 1962.

the association started sponsoring a scholarship 20 years ago. now is a big part of our evening. we use all the proceeds to award them at the dinner. this first lady enjoys coming up to hand them out. it's a high point of our evening. news organizations invite celebrities to the dinner? you have to define celebrity. if you are inviting the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee come in my world, that is a celebrity. i'm lucky enough to sit at the head table with the president of the united states. that's the biggest celebrity in the room. there are other celebrities who come. i assume you're talking about hollywood. organizations invite people who work for their tv networks. >> washington journal continues. host: a look at the recent numbers from the bureau of labor

statistics. unemployment, a 6.3% unemployed right. 288,000 jobs created. we are getting your thoughts on it for our last half-hour or so. we are going to divide the lines differently. for those of you who are employed, (202) 585-3880. unemployed, (202) 585-3881. if you have found a job within the last year, give us a call at (202) 585-3882. the new york times and others taking a look at these numbers that came out. the new york times, jumps in payrolls. signs of new optimism. at the best monthly showing in more than two years, employers added 280,000 jobs. the labor department said on friday, representing three consecutive months in which payrolls grew by more than 200,000. the report, combined with other

recent data suggests the economy is poised to expand at a faster pace in the coming months. wages do not grow at all in april. many americans remain doubtful that they will benefit from what the fed and the white house he has evidence of resurgent economy. our remaining time together, your thoughts on it. from the perspective you bring to it. employed, unemployed or found a job last year. the numbers will be on your screen. (202) 585-3880 for the employed. (202) 585-3881 for the unemployed. (202) 585-3882 if you found a job in the last year. senior york times economics correspondent joins us. we know the actual numbers. what is not being said? a fe caller: a few things.

mentioned the lower unemployment rate at 280,000 jobs. the soft underbelly of this report was what happened to the labor force. not because people had jobs, but more people said, i will not go look for a job. i will not join the labor force. that is not really the unemployment rate falling for good reasons. on thisn asterisk report. host: what does it say about people who continue to be unemployed? there is a bit of a stretch. we have had these five years of elevated unemployed men. this is not a recession where somebody loses their job and three months later finds one. people have lost their jobs, many have remained unemployed

for months or years. that creates long-lasting issues for the u.s. economy because you come back to work in three months and every thing is fine. you lose your jobs for three you three years and lose your skills and connections. it's much harder to get back to work after five years than three months. with this long, sluggish , it's not the robust expansion we would like to see. host: if you look at the specific categories, they all saw some pretty robust increases. caller: it was a good month in april. the job gains were broad-based. one thing i liked seeing was construction jobs. that's a sign the construction industry is getting back to work , homebuilding activity doesn't seem toproving -- does be improving.

the more mixed one, you did not see a raise in wages. that's a sign that we're not seeing the wage gains we would like to see. plenty of good stuff to see. some details, not so great. host: a recent piece he wrote for the new york times says we have said party much on the monthly jobs report. caller: a lot of people who read these stories and see this news coverage don't necessarily understand some of the variants. the random errors that happen in the service. it is good data and they survey 144,000 businesses. it's a remarkable effort. it isat does not mean certain. the labor department itself says the standard error on the monthly job change numbers --

what they mean when they say 280,000 is that they have 90% confidence that the true number is within 90,000 that. what they're really saying is that, the actual job creation number was somewhere between 200,000-370,000 in april. it's not as good of a headline as a more simple, straightforward, this is what the number is. host: if you look at this piece online, there are two bar graphs listed. job growth steady over the last two months. the next one consistently shifts. why is that happening online? caller: we're are showing you what the actual job growth number -- the full range of possibilities of what might be reported on the first friday morning of the month. it is not a fixed number.

that is what randomness does. if you go to a baseball game and your favorite team is doing well, they have a great game, that is great to see. doesn't really tell you a lot about how we're going to do over the course of the season. you are seeing a small sample. that is what happens in the jobs report. we're seeing one survey in a moment in time. you look at it over time and see over the course of many months in different datasets, is the economy growing or shrinking? don't attest too much over one number in one month. host: the senior economics correspondent for the new york times here to talk about the numbers and how to look at jobs numbers. thank you. caller: thank you. host: for the remainder of our time, your thoughts on these numbers that were released by the labor department. the 6.3% unemployment rate. we are asking you or perspective

on it from three categories. employed, (202) 585-3880. unemployed, (202) 585-3881. if you found a job in the last year, (202) 585-3882. make your thoughts on twitter known. randy is up first. hoboken, new jersey. unemployed. my concern is the h one isa shenanigans. visa application, knowing that 13 million unemployed americans -- the department of justice has refused to prosecute anybody. they simply settle for finding people.

-- fining people. from the to hide it list of unemployed americans before filing all h one visa requests. host: how long have you been unemployed? caller: one year. i was working in i.t. consulting before that. host: talk about your job search. you might get hired on a temporary basis to train some brought in from southeast asia. once you are done training them, they stay and you go. host: thomas up next. employed in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. good topic. 2008 for thef in

.etter part of three years hea i went through two claims and all of the extensions. i got a couple of jobs in that time, but they never lasted longer than 90 days. and, in march, i got a job i have been working ever since full-time. i landed a pretty decent job that was out of my field. i was an electrician for 30 years. i'm doing something totally different now. i'm grateful to have a job. these numbers that they throw one number is the labor force participation rate. that is under 63%. is the highest since 1978. that is something to consider also. host: richard joining us from

florida. unemployed. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say, i have been unemployed since may of 2013. i left the navy a wild back and got into the civilian labor force and work for 13 years in the i.t. field. because of my age, i think it is guysdifficult for us older -- ind a job, especially have been mature enough to draw a pretty good paycheck for a salary. i think it is difficult to get that same type of salary, even extensiveave an extensiv experience. age is against us. oft: as far as the types

jobs you are going for and the experiences needed. caller: i have had a few interviews. doave used the internet to job searches. i have gone on a few interviews. i'm looking for i.t. work, telecommunications, engineering. optics. that would fall in the realm of i.t.. if you look at categories for april of 2014, when it comes to men, the employment rate is 5.9%. women, 5.7%. third whites, 5.3%. blacks, 11.6% and hispanics come in 7.3%. for the remainder of our time, a look at the new numbers that

came out. a story in the washington post this morning taking a look at mers. a case confirmed in indiana. havetious disease experts been monitoring the virus closely because of the high mortality rate among people with symptoms. the virus has been confirmed in 431 people and 93 have died. the cases originated in six countries in the arabian peninsula. they develop acute respiratory illnesses. the six infections in saudi arabia on tuesday. in saudi arabia on tuesday were confirmed. you can read that this morning in the washington post. here's dale from illinois. found a job in the last year. good morning. what job did you find? caller: and i.t. position as a senior developer.

i was let go in 2008 and i've been able to work two years since then. about your job hunting and job getting experience. caller: i have work that one of banks in the united states. during the interview, this really bothered me. i have very specific skill sets . manager that wast wa said, i have to hire an american because i can't get the school se skill sets frm india. i felt very hurt by that. host: tom is up next.

minnesota. employed. i was and what full-time, i work for a great company. my concern is, if you look at the constitution, the preamble suggests promoting the general welfare. we have lost track of that as it regards to job creation. host: why's that? we are thinking more in terms of trading in profit i instead of helping create jobs. host: a couple of tweets. that thener saying jobs report also indicates more than 800,000 americans leaving the work force last month, which is troubling. allow renewal of a employment insurance. the jobs report indicates

800,000 americans left work force last month." tom harkin saying that the report shows our economy is on the mend. we must continue to work to help all workers share in economic recovery. senator john saying that the april labor force participation rate dropped by 800-6000. by 806,000. 220,000 jobs added in april. if you are employed, give us a call at (202) 585-3880. .nemployed, (202) 585-3881 if you found a job in the last year, (202) 585-3882. roger is calling us from california. you are currently unemployed?

caller: yes. three months ago. host: what kind of work were you doing? caller: fabrication. that shed by my lawyer had to cut her workforce to below 50 workers. because she could not afford to pay for health insurance for more workers and could not afford to do that. host: has your job hunting experience -- what has that been like? caller: jobs are hard to find. i had to move back to bayside. inre are not many jobs here the eureka area. host: are you getting any unemployed and assistance? caller: yes. host: when does that expire?

caller: i still have three months of it left. host: for the types of applications that you have how many, interviews are you getting? caller: arlene and he. -- hardly any. host: have you thought about changing careers? caller: i will take anything at this point. i would rather work than be on unemployment. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania. alex is employed. caller: under the bush administration, i got laid off because the company moved to mexico. i got a job driving a truck after that. and idriving the truck got laid off from that because it was a temporary job.

employed, so ily had to stop working. job ased my own a general contractor. this president has done a great job. host: as far as the general contracting, how is that going for you? caller: fairly well. host: the system worked? caller: yes. host: jeff from pennsylvania on our unemployed line. would calligured i in because i noticed one of the allers said i would rather take anything at this point. i have been unemployed since january of 2012 and it's really hard considering most of the interviews you go to, if you had a good job in the field, a love questions you get is, why would you take this job?

is better than nothing is not the right answer sometimes. , with jobsced that in the area, especially if i have a dui on my record, which makes it even more difficult for to getuals in this area a job at a grocery store or any type of mid-level, minimum-wage job. they are rare. lot of jobs are temporary. may i ask how much you are making in our? -- an hour? caller: i was making $18.64. i got about $50,000 a year. tost: the jobs are no matching that rate? caller: not at all.

you have to start at starting pay. a lot of the welding jobs around the area are 12-13 dollar now are jobs. they are temporary. the company puts you on for a couple of months all they are busy and then you get laid off again. employment permanent seems to be more of an issue among many people because everything seems to be more leaning towards embury. -- towards temporary. host: how do you plan to go forward? caller: i'm looking for any field, like warehousing. a lot of warehousing jobs are becoming available. construction jobs. things i may still be able to utilize the skills i learned by going to school and learning a trade. apply that to another field. talking reaction to her job experience. the washington post has a photo

of the latest fighting in ukraine. ukraine severed its bloodiest day when nine people were killed when an army launched a major assault on a rebel stronghold. pro-ukrainian and progression mobs clashed in odessa. theukrainian army attacked city in the east at dawn, provoking heavies military fighting since the uprising. tockpoints were unable from butler, pennsylvania. this is peter, who is employed. caller: hi. disabled. i was an ivy league graduate. i went and got a job in retail. although the middle class is

struggling, i do feel much better about myself because i work full-time as a retail worker. bloomberg news rates us retail workers as the least paid. the hardest job in america for the least pay. i would recommend getting out and working. even retail can be rewarding. host: is a full-time hours? caller: it started out part-time and i added disability. i finally got full-time. about your benefits? caller: i get health insurance and four weeks vacation and personal days. i get satisfaction helping people and working with my peers. i still am very happy. host: if you look at the write

journal, wall street talks about part-time workers, saying that part-time workers who want full-time jobs grew to 7.5 million. individuals in the prime of their working lives streamed out of the labor force. the obama administration is pressing to a low wage workers. estimates that employers would have to cut 500,000 jobs by 2016. republicans blocked an effort by democrats to bring a minimum-wage proposal to the senate floor. bonnie is up next. good morning. bonnie from austin, texas. hello. caller: hello. my main problem -- i had a job for 12 years. i have not had full-time work for six years. i have worked temp jobs and have

tried to prove myself. would i went to school for and what i was in for 25 years, retail. i had to start over again. minimum-wage trying to prove myself. i still have not gotten a quarter raise. --ple have to try to pay ce part-time jobs together. you are having to travel really far and pay a lot of gas prices. you are using your emergency money to pay what you can pay for your bills. over a decade of money that i had in savings. it's crazy. host: that is bonnie telling us about her experience.

lines intoided the employed, unemployed and found a job in the last year. free to call in the remaining time that we have. the white house correspondents dinner is tonight. i invite you, especially if you are the type who watches television on your smartphone or tablet. if you go to our facebook and twitter accounts, you can not only find additional content, but historical context. not only can you watch our coverage, which starts at 6:00, go to our facebook page and and follow us. additional content available to you as part of our coverage of the correspondents dinner. tonight at 6:00. william from connecticut. he is employed. good morning. caller: thank you.

practice and five employees. interns -- the business climate is atrocious. i'm a lifelong -- the creed of the democratic party is dead dependent despair -- debt dependent despair. the problem is that you don't have any feeling that there is a future for people who want to work hard and engage in free enterprise. you see that labor participation rate dropping the way it is, so many people have thrown in the towel. i give the american people credit for the number of people who are going to work instead of buying into this mantra of dependency on government programs. that is my comment. ,ost: on our sister channel

c-span2 and c-span3, they tune into book tv. ourring you content from local content vehicle. they travel around the country to get a sense of literary issues of the state and historical context. utah is where they have gone for the last few weeks. you can see some of that content on our website. , you at noon on c-span2 can join us as we feature all of our book offerings, including a look at the history of homesickness in our culture. here to utah with my husband and we were eager to come west erie it i suddenly how much i missed my family in the midwest. i wondered if i was strange in that way because i heard for generations that americans have et out west and never

looked back. i found that difficult. i wondered if i was an anomaly. the more i investigated the topic, i realized it was quite a prominent theme in american history. one that has been overlooked by historians. any archive i went to in the united states, i could easily reflecting on their homesickness in the 19th century or 18th century. painful it wasow to leave home and family and possibly have no chance of going back. how they struggle with that emotion. one thing that struck me was were very public about their homesickness in the 19th century. "home sweet home." it topped the charts. it would bring americans to tears because everybody seemed to be moving in the 19th century. home sweet, sweet

home. ♪ host: that is available on book tv. ogden, utah. steve, thanks for holding on. phoenix, arizona on our employed line. i would recommend to anybody who does not have employment right now to consider trucking. the trucking companies are all pretty -- they need help. it is not a career because the trucks will be driving themselves in 10 years. , it willed a job today let you see other fields which will be more interesting to you. host: is that what you did? caller: i became a truck driver because i liked truck driving

and they started a company. i am a truck driver and i work with other guys who own their own trucks. the short answer is, yes. i like trucking because i get to look around and see other fields of interest everywhere i go. need benefit that you get in trucking. if you don't know what you want or whatever, you can see a lot of stuff. it opens other avenues. the trucking is easy to learn. 3-4 months. it pays a low-middle income wage. i would not recommend it for a career. what i would recommend it for somebody that wants to get up and moving. new york. employed. caller: thanks for taking my call. . am currently employed

i have a couple of comments. what i have heard from a federal reserve report is there is a shift in the unemployment numbers going down that are not tied to policy. that would be recognition of the fact that there are a lot of people who are no longer searching for work. that is because we have been through the great recession. i did go through a time of unemployment in 2000. what the banks did back then was where peoplet card could have low interest rates until they paid them off. similar to a lot of people and was had debt unemployed for 1.5 years. i would get these low interest rate credit cards and pay them off. i was not only able to dig

myself out, but acquire savings. . hope it's not out of fear the banks are not doing that today. i don't understand why they don't make a similar offer. it would be a nice way to help those who earn. last call we the will take. that is it for today's edition of the program. tomorrow, we will be joined by the brookings institution. stuart taylor profiles for rts.onal security expe the harvard institute of politics, talking about their latest poll looking at millennial's and their voting habits. how they might vote in 2014. that at 8:30.bout from the office of

the defense secretary. we will talk about the rise of and thed their military economy. we will take a look at the papers and take on those topics. don't forget our coverage tonight at 6:00. that does it for us today. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you are watching c-span, created is a public service by america's cable companies. next, the student can documentary competition. we ask students what is the most important issue that congress should consider? after at